Call time on booze rules
Reports that K-pop superstar Lisa Manoban has become a brand ambassador for a whisky-maker have caused something of a frenzy here in her home country. Earlier this week, authorities issued a terse warning they were considering action against people who post and share images of the Blackpink superstar in her latest role. The Thai entertainer was listed as one of the world’s most admired women last year.
The threat was issued by the Office of the Alcohol Control Committee, with instructions from the Disease Control Department. It is in line with the state’s rigid policy against alcohol advertising.
With such an archaic policy, the state has implemented a set of rules and regulations which are illogical, unrealistic and not likely to have a meaningful effect in terms of alcohol control. In fact, taking the proposed action would mostly make the agencies look paranoid.
Yet the Lisa incident serves as a wake-up call regarding how the country needs to review its anti-alcohol policy.
In particular, there is criticism that the harsh punishment is not proportionate. Violators of the ban on advertising alcohol can face a hefty fine of up to 500,000 baht or one-year imprisonment, or both. The problem is the broad interpretation of “advertisements”. Pictures accompanying articles about drinking — even if they are educational in purpose — can land the publisher in legal trouble.
As the regulations prohibit stars and celebrities from promoting alcoholic drinks, a few questions emerge: will Lisa be in trouble for her role? Might she be subject to a sermon meant to cause her much embarrassment? Or, if they do nothing, would the authorities themselves be negligent?
Such unrealistic regulations mean the state has to prepare for an exception to the rule, which of course makes people question the merits of the regulations in the first place.
Examples abound. To begin with, there is the ban on beverage companies sponsoring sporting events. Such control cannot be applied to televised sports events that take place abroad. Moreover, isn’t it a case of double standards since the television audience can still see foreign drink sponsors of the same events?
There are also allegations that such strict controls hinder the competitiveness of small-scale alcohol producers, such as craft beer makers, which would benefit much more from such promotional activities, and which also have the potential to promote tourism. Beer giants are well established and do not need much help in terms of advertising as they have other promotional channels. In contrast, small producers need recognition, not discrimination.
Another restriction that seems to serve little use is the ban on the sale of alcohol from 2-5pm in the afternoon and from midnight to 11am. Notably, this applies to retail purchasers but not wholesalers, meaning you can’t buy a bottle of wine or beer from your local convenience store during those hours, but you could purchase crates of them from a wholesaler.
It’s regrettable that the state decided yesterday to dismiss calls by the business sector to lift the ban on selling booze from 2-5pm.
Needless to say, public education is the key to controlling the consumption of alcohol, along with other social measures, while strong enforcement is needed in the area of drunk driving and underage drinking.
It’s time to review and revoke all of these useless regulations that are nothing more than an annoyance for law enforcement and a nuisance for consumers.